No strict interpretation often leads to excuses. "Well you know it doesnt exactly say that I have to help, so I won't". Some things are supposed to be taken literal, but its understood what is meant. Strict interpretation leads to over analyzing and that leads to loopholes in different things i.e. excuses.
Oh, it must have human interpretation, based on the judgments of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. But all interpretation must be based historically of previos decisions and precedents. Human rights are ageless, so it really doesn't matter what has changed in 200 years. Just my opinion...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No strict interpretation often leads to excuses. "Well you know it doesnt exactly say that I have to help, so I won't". Some things are supposed to be taken literal, but its understood what is meant. Strict interpretation leads to over analyzing and that leads to loopholes in different things i.e. excuses. </div></div>
Don't understand your post. I try and help alot of people - a few dollars there, a few here...Charity is best left in the hands of the citizenry, and not the hands of the feds.
What I am saying is that just because a the constitution or bible doesnt flat out say something, it doesnt mean its not implied. Somethings arent meant to be taken literal, more like a metaphor. In the bible it says something like "if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off" Now a strict interpretation would mean for you to actually cut your hand off, but in my eyes it means rid anything in your life that causes to sin. And its not like the churches cant help, they do and did during Katrina. But the govt is in place to protect its people, FEMA was made solely to help during disasters.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R13</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I am saying is that just because a the constitution or bible doesnt </div></div>
IMO, they are both to set standards, guidelines, etc. But when gets into moral relativism, then it all begins to fall apart. There has to be absolutes - constitutionally and biblically. Without such, everthing is based on relativism. Just my opinion.
Yes I agree. But somethings really arent meant to be taken literally and others are understood by most. Thats what lawyers do, they read something and look for loopholes - its because they take it the strict interpretation way and thats the only thing the courts accept...but it doesnt mean the outcome is always right.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Biggin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So its not the federal governments role to help out americans who have no hope otherwise?
the constitution didnt adress natural disasters, because, and im just guessing here, that it was understood that the government would help take care of them.
cmon, you can do better than that.
When innocent americans are being killed by a natural disaster, the government should be the first in line to help out in any way possible.
saving lives is more important than the constitution, the church, etc.... </div></div>
Maybe the Founders thought natural disasters fell here:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
"We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism."
- Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959
Welcome to the USSA!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks